Sunday, October 23, 2005

A Very Thorough Analysis

Mike at Mike's America has a very detailed, interesting, and thought provoking post about the Harriet Miers nomination. I have wavered both for and against her being a Supreme Court Justice, but based only on persuasive arguments from other people. Mike lays down a few things that I hadn't heard from anyone else. Such as:
President Bush's Record on Nominations
President Bush has appointed a series of known and respected conservatives, Priscilla Owen , Janice Rogers Brown , Thomas B. Griffith, William H. Pryor Jr., Richard Allan Griffin, David McKeague. And that's just those confirmed since May.

Are conservatives happy with those nominees, now sitting judges?
Or about how we made a choice in November of 2004 knowing that there would most likely be at least one Supreme Court Justice spot opening up. George W. Bush was chosen and we must trust that he knows what he is doing.
Would conservatives be happier with President Kerry's foreign policy? Global test anyone?

And what about federal spending under Kerry? How about illegal immigrants receiving expanded rights at the expense of citizens?

When one of the current crop of carping conservatives gets elected President, then he or she can do it their way. And the rest of us will be free to complain.

But if you voted for Bush, and respect his accomplishments and have faith in his leadership, then you should support your man. If you don't support him, you support the Democrats by default.
Then there are the consequences if Bush withdraws Miers as a nominee.
After Robert Bork was defeated by Senate Democrats in his bid to join the Supreme Court in 1987, President Reagan nominated Federal Judge Douglas Ginsburg to take his place. It was later learned that Ginsburg admitted to smoking Marijuana earlier in his life and his nomination was withdrawn. At that point, the presidency was so politically weakened that a "unity" nominee, Anthony Kennedy was selected.

Want the Justice Kennedy History to Repeat Itself?

It's perhaps more true that this whole conservative dustup will be forgotten shortly after Miers is confirmed, and votes on the court as President Bush expects her too, in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Should she later be the deciding vote to overturn Roe versus Wade and return the power to decide that issue to the states, the Holy Grail of conservatism, those currently opposing here will, as Ricky Ricardo used to say to Lucy :"have some 'splainin' to do."

Many of those who would withdraw this nomination before it even came to a hearing before the Judiciary Committee were among those calling loudest for President Bush's previous nominees to receive an "up or down vote."Should we know turn that notion on it's head simply because we have an entrenched view of who or what a Supreme Court justice should be?
Just a few more things to think about where Harriet Miers and her nomination is concerned.

Thank you Mike for the great post!

No comments: